2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s deep reflects on the instant crime, that the Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of injury, that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and that the victim’s self-defense and shouldered the Defendant and demanded accommodation charges, resulting in contingent crimes, and that the degree of assault in the event of interference with the performance of official duties is minor and the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not excessive.

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the trial at the court below. In full view of the following: (a) the defendant committed the crime of this case without any person even during the period of suspension of execution; (b) the crime obstructing the performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish a legal order; (c) the defendant did not receive a letter from the police officer damaged; (d) the defendant did not receive the same criminal record from the police officer; and (e) the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, character and behavior, environment, age, etc. of the defendant, the court below's sentencing

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.